“‘There is nothing intrinsically shameful (or arousing) in nudity. No infant is ashamed of his or her nudity, or bodily excretions. That this state of innocence changes, to a greater or lesser degree, cannot simply be attributed to the Other, since its changes are unique to each person (and culture), and never deducible in advance. One is the bearer of one’s own shame/arousal, and it is a bit of bad faith to reduce it to some self-evident effect of the ‘shaming’/arousing Other. It’s true that the Other’s body may be a metaphor for one’s jouissance (qua arousal)*, just as the Other’s gaze may become a metaphor for one’s shame, but a metaphor is, after all, defined as a displacement, and is not the thing itself.There is something glib and paradoxical then in the popular demand for a right to jouissance without shame, whether this jouissance be of the sexual, chemical or some other variety.* Only under conditions of pure narcissism – namely, the total elision of the Other – could such jouissance exist. It is as if jouissance and desire are, of themselves, insufficient, and some further approval, or even applause is required,’ melbournelacanian writes” – http://ift.tt/1PkUoLLhttp://ift.tt/1YLPqs7